Audi 80 1991 vs Volvo XC60 2008
Select specific versions of each model (by engine capacity, power, drivetrain and gearbox) for an accurate comparison
| Body: | Estate car / wagon | Crossover / SUV | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Crossovers and SUVs have better off-road capabilities (higher ground clearance, can have 4x4 drive), they are preferable for driving on unpaved roads and rural areas. Also, the driver's seating position is higher in a crossover or SUVs, which provides better visibility also in city. This usually comes at the cost of higher fuel consumption, increased weight and higher maintenance costs. | |||
| Gearbox: | Manual/Automatic | Manual/Automatic | |
| Engines: | 1.6 - 2.8 | 2.0 - 3.0 | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 75 - 174 HP | 163 - 285 HP | |
| Torque: | 130 - 245 NM | 300 - 440 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 8.2 - 16.7 seconds | 7.5 - 10.9 seconds | |
| Select a car version for a more accurate comparison! | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 5.5 - 10.5 | 6.0 - 11.9 | |
|
Audi 80 petrol engines consumes on average 0.1 litres less fuel per 100 km than Volvo XC60. On average, Audi 80 equipped with diesel engines consume 1.1 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Volvo XC60. This comparison does not take engine capacity into account, so to compare the fuel consumption of specific engines, select the car version! | |||
| Ground clearance: | 130 - 135 mm (5.1 - 5.3 inches) | 230 mm (9.1 inches) | |
| Because of the higher ground clearance, Volvo XC60 can perform better on bad roads - it can go over higher obstacles and bumps. At the same time, the higher ground clearance can reduce stability and handling on paved roads, especially at higher speeds. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.48 m | 4.63 m | |
| Width: | 1.70 m | 1.89 m | |
| Height: | 1.41 m | 1.71 m | |
|
Audi 80 is smaller. Audi 80 is 15 cm shorter than the Volvo XC60, 19 cm narrower, while the height of Audi 80 is 30 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 370 litres | 495 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
1200 litres | 1455 litres | |
|
Volvo XC60 has more luggage space. Audi 80 has 125 litres less trunk space than the Volvo XC60. The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Volvo XC60 (by 255 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 11.2 meters | 12.1 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Audi 80 is 0.9 metres less than that of the Volvo XC60, which means Audi 80 can be easier to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | ~ 1`879 | ~ 2`499 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | below average | high | |
| Average price (€): | 800 | 9400 | |
| Rating in user reviews: | 7.3/10 | 7.6/10 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Audi 80 has
|
Volvo XC60 has
| |